login
The whole homosexuality debate
-
No new posts
|
 2015-01-23 11:51 AM |
Extreme Veteran  3025    Maryland |  Subject: The whole homosexuality debateWas listening to a politician earlier today talk about "treating" homosexuality (like its a disease or something). It got me thinking: Why is the whole "being Homosexual is a choice" thing a debate. Even if it was a choice, what right would anyone have to discriminate against it or call it wrong? We need to stop letting the loud religious conservatives into the private lives of the individual. We need to stop letting them pass discriminatory legislation against any group, and we need to call them out and stand up for what is right. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you are free to impose your religious beliefs on others, it means others have the freedom to live their lives out from under the influence of your religious beliefs.
X |
| 2015-01-23 12:03 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655   | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate For me, I have a hard time figuring out how this is even an issue anymore. To be clear, I understand that it IS still an issue, but I can't think of many things more ridiculous than caring about someone's sexual orientation....and it seems that it should go without saying that couples of any sexual orientation should all have the same rights. I bet we, as a society, are maybe one or two generations away from this issue not even needing to be on the table anymore. |
| 2015-01-23 1:37 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Veteran 869 Stevens Point, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Yes well said both of you. While LB I know that you have said it before and I wish that everyone thought like you two. I can assure you it is not a choice. It is an issue, because well it is an issue. Trust me, I would be thrilled if it wasn't and I could just go about my business. Things are a lot better then they were a few years ago but there is still work to be done and until it is completed you are going to hear about it. I also agree with LB that we are just a few generations from this being a non issue, which is awesome. I just look forward to that day, and hope that I am around to see it. |
| 2015-01-23 3:05 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
New user 1351 Austin, Texas | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate In my short lifetime I feel like I've seen the gay rights movement really take off, as well it should. I can see both sides of the gun debate, I can see both sides of the drugs debate, but when it comes to the issue of gay rights I am completely flabbergasted that I live in the 21st century and this is still a thing. When I hear the opposing side of it, I feel like I've gone back in time to the dark ages. I have a very religious friend who doesn't feel like she should "have to be ok with gay marriage." It's hard to politely keep my mouth shut. However at the rate that young people are becoming ok with it, I'd really hope that it's only 2 generations before it's not even an issue any more. |
| 2015-01-24 8:41 AM in reply to: trijamie |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. |
| 2015-01-24 9:58 AM in reply to: NXS |
| 360 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. |
| 2015-01-24 10:26 AM in reply to: SenatorClayDavis |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. Do you think that is happening in this case? If so, how? |
| 2015-01-24 11:22 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. Do you think that is happening in this case? If so, how? Well there are people who believe that gay marriage is amoral; an idea they base on their personal religious beliefs. They push for legislation outlawing gay marriage. That would infringe on the rights of gay people to get married. |
| 2015-01-24 11:24 AM in reply to: 0 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Edited by NXS 2015-01-24 11:26 AM |
| 2015-01-24 11:39 AM in reply to: NXS |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. |
| 2015-01-24 3:33 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. The only heart I can change is my own. If you cannot have compassion on someone who thinks differently than you, then it seems a little foolish to me to expect them to have compassion for you or your cause. Perhaps I am a little different (sure hope not) in that you don't have to think and behave as I want in order for me to see value or have compassion for you. |
| 2015-01-24 4:21 PM in reply to: NXS |
| 360 Ottawa, Ontario | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. The only heart I can change is my own. If you cannot have compassion on someone who thinks differently than you, then it seems a little foolish to me to expect them to have compassion for you or your cause. Perhaps I am a little different (sure hope not) in that you don't have to think and behave as I want in order for me to see value or have compassion for you. So we should have compassion for those in other parts of the world who believe that when a woman is raped she has committed adultery and be stoned to death? Because they believe it's moral to do so, we shouldn't interfere? I have a hard time swallowing that. Likewise I have a hard to with the notion that because someone's religious believes tell them homosexuals should be granted fewer rights that the rest of the population, that the rest of us should tolerate their beliefs. I get the whole "love your neighbour" thing, but when one neighbour is actively persecuting another who is doing nothing wrong, I know who I'm siding with, and I think it's a moral cop-out to just stand back and say "I'm going to have compassion for everyone" and not speak out when there's injustice. |
| 2015-01-24 4:46 PM in reply to: SenatorClayDavis |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS So we should have compassion for those in other parts of the world who believe that when a woman is raped she has committed adultery and be stoned to death? Because they believe it's moral to do so, we shouldn't interfere? I have a hard time swallowing that. Likewise I have a hard to with the notion that because someone's religious believes tell them homosexuals should be granted fewer rights that the rest of the population, that the rest of us should tolerate their beliefs. I get the whole "love your neighbour" thing, but when one neighbour is actively persecuting another who is doing nothing wrong, I know who I'm siding with, and I think it's a moral cop-out to just stand back and say "I'm going to have compassion for everyone" and not speak out when there's injustice. Originally posted by dmiller5 The only heart I can change is my own. If you cannot have compassion on someone who thinks differently than you, then it seems a little foolish to me to expect them to have compassion for you or your cause. Perhaps I am a little different (sure hope not) in that you don't have to think and behave as I want in order for me to see value or have compassion for you. Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. Agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and i have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. |
| 2015-01-24 8:20 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS So we should have compassion for those in other parts of the world who believe that when a woman is raped she has committed adultery and be stoned to death? Because they believe it's moral to do so, we shouldn't interfere? I have a hard time swallowing that. Likewise I have a hard to with the notion that because someone's religious believes tell them homosexuals should be granted fewer rights that the rest of the population, that the rest of us should tolerate their beliefs. I get the whole "love your neighbour" thing, but when one neighbour is actively persecuting another who is doing nothing wrong, I know who I'm siding with, and I think it's a moral cop-out to just stand back and say "I'm going to have compassion for everyone" and not speak out when there's injustice. Originally posted by dmiller5 The only heart I can change is my own. If you cannot have compassion on someone who thinks differently than you, then it seems a little foolish to me to expect them to have compassion for you or your cause. Perhaps I am a little different (sure hope not) in that you don't have to think and behave as I want in order for me to see value or have compassion for you. Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. Agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and i have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. Well I hope that made you feel better. I'm outa here. |
| 2015-01-26 7:54 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and i have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. wow... you mean like the same thing that is said about gays.... go do at long as it isn't public. Nice. |
| 2015-01-26 8:06 AM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and i have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. wow... you mean like the same thing that is said about gays.... go do at long as it isn't public. Nice. No. If you translated what I said into the gay debate it would be more like. Go and have whatever relationship you want, just don't tell me to have a homosexual relationship. Pretty sure all sides would agree that what you want to do in your own life is fine, just don't try to impose it upon other people. |
| 2015-01-26 8:06 AM in reply to: powerman |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate The problem is that this is the only thing... that is trying to be made a protected class by birth... that you can "choose". I happen to think it's a birth thing. And I also don't care if you do choose... it's just that it isn't as easy to define as black and white. Speech is a choice, and so is RTBA. But those are activities. For some, same sex is born, and some it's a choice. The other bad thing is that there is a very promiscuous vocal wing of the community. What the heck does parading around as sexual deviants have anything to do with gay pride? Yet parades are known for there more than "R" rating. Now again... I don't care. Seriously, not one bit. I'm just saying that there is a public image that it is more about the orgies and sex than it is about a human rights thing. I'm not making a case for anything. I agree with all that has been said. It's a non-issue for me. I'm just trying to point out why it is a issue for some. Be bi-curious all you want. Everyone should be in a good orgy before they die. Marry and love who ever you choose. All good with me.... it's just that this issue isn't cut and dried like race, creed, or ethnicity. It get's muddied in the "sexual revolution" and that get's muddied with "moral" judgments. It's complicated. Shouldn't be, but it is for some. |
| 2015-01-26 8:17 AM in reply to: 0 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and I have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. wow... you mean like the same thing that is said about gays.... go do at long as it isn't public. Nice. No. If you translated what I said into the gay debate it would be more like. Go and have whatever relationship you want, just don't tell me to have a homosexual relationship. Pretty sure all sides would agree that what you want to do in your own life is fine, just don't try to impose it upon other people. Well... for arguments sake... isn't that what the gay community is doing? When you start from nothing, then anything becomes something. Yes, homosexuality has been kept in the closet. Now it's coming out. But how can you not think that is foisting someone's "lifestyle" on someone else? I seriously find this funny. Blacks used to always complain about there never being blacks in media. And rightly so. As a percentage of the population, they were certainly under represented in media... TV/movies. Then when hispanics became a economic block... bam, hispanics all over TV/movies. Well now, with homosexuality... um, WOW. I honestly believe it's a union rule in Holywood they can't produce a show with out gay representation. Seriously, they seem very over represented as a percentage of population. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Public awareness is a good thing. It's all good.... but many see that as forcing their beliefs on others. Nobody is making anyone have gay sex any more than anyone is making anyone accept Jesus and go to to church. But boths sides love to claim freedoms, then chastise the other for wanting to use them. Edited by powerman 2015-01-26 8:19 AM |
| 2015-01-26 9:53 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS So we should have compassion for those in other parts of the world who believe that when a woman is raped she has committed adultery and be stoned to death? Because they believe it's moral to do so, we shouldn't interfere? I have a hard time swallowing that. Likewise I have a hard to with the notion that because someone's religious believes tell them homosexuals should be granted fewer rights that the rest of the population, that the rest of us should tolerate their beliefs. I get the whole "love your neighbour" thing, but when one neighbour is actively persecuting another who is doing nothing wrong, I know who I'm siding with, and I think it's a moral cop-out to just stand back and say "I'm going to have compassion for everyone" and not speak out when there's injustice. Originally posted by dmiller5 The only heart I can change is my own. If you cannot have compassion on someone who thinks differently than you, then it seems a little foolish to me to expect them to have compassion for you or your cause. Perhaps I am a little different (sure hope not) in that you don't have to think and behave as I want in order for me to see value or have compassion for you. Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. Agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and i have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. A true example of tolerance with a side of ridicule... |
| 2015-01-26 10:01 AM in reply to: jford2309 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by jford2309 Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Originally posted by NXS So we should have compassion for those in other parts of the world who believe that when a woman is raped she has committed adultery and be stoned to death? Because they believe it's moral to do so, we shouldn't interfere? I have a hard time swallowing that. Likewise I have a hard to with the notion that because someone's religious believes tell them homosexuals should be granted fewer rights that the rest of the population, that the rest of us should tolerate their beliefs. I get the whole "love your neighbour" thing, but when one neighbour is actively persecuting another who is doing nothing wrong, I know who I'm siding with, and I think it's a moral cop-out to just stand back and say "I'm going to have compassion for everyone" and not speak out when there's injustice. Originally posted by dmiller5 The only heart I can change is my own. If you cannot have compassion on someone who thinks differently than you, then it seems a little foolish to me to expect them to have compassion for you or your cause. Perhaps I am a little different (sure hope not) in that you don't have to think and behave as I want in order for me to see value or have compassion for you. Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by SenatorClayDavis Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I have been commanded to love my neighbor as myself and so I try. May not agree with them on things, but I still love and respect them. On every issue there are two sides, until people can look at the other side with respect and tolerate differences, the issue will continue to be polarizing. I am not talking about screaming my side has rights, while the other says the same, I am talking about rising above a personal agenda and actually showing compassion to people simply because they are human beings. Originally posted by NXS I think folks on both sides of the issue need to be a little more tolerant and understanding. You mean the people who are intolerant are deserving of tolerance? On the one hand it's somewhat admirable to preach tolerance regardless of whether that feeling is reciprocated. But that also suggests a moral relativism that means it's "ok" to discriminate against people if that's what you believe. I'm all for live and let live, but when your beliefs infringe on other people's rights, a line needs to be drawn. There is a big difference between compassion for your fellow human, and tolerating prejudice. Someone who is racist or homophobic, and is actively working to harm those groups, cannot be allowed to do so because we must have tolerance and love them. In that case the compassionate thing would be to challenge their ideas, show them why these beliefs harm other people, and engage them in discourse. If they can't see or do not want to see why their beliefs hurt others, they are free to think what they want. However, in this country the just must stand up for others, and stop those who would mistreat their fellow humans. Does a police officer let someone assault someone out of compassion for the aggressor? No, he stops the assault. The bullying of the LGBT community is the same thing. Agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and i have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. A true example of tolerance with a side of ridicule... I can think its stupid. I just can't make your religion illegal. I haven't been saying people should be tolerant. I have been saying that you can't discriminate against others because you don't like what they do or believe. If someone made it illegal for you to get married because you believe in Christianity, I'd be writing the same thing.
|
| 2015-01-26 10:07 AM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 agreed. Also, compassion doesn't mean letting someone do whatever they want. You can believe in whatever made up fantasy superbeing you believe in, and I have tolerance for that, and compassion for your beliefs...now go have them over there in your own home, and don't tell other people what they can and cannot do because your made up superbeing said so. wow... you mean like the same thing that is said about gays.... go do at long as it isn't public. Nice. No. If you translated what I said into the gay debate it would be more like. Go and have whatever relationship you want, just don't tell me to have a homosexual relationship. Pretty sure all sides would agree that what you want to do in your own life is fine, just don't try to impose it upon other people. Well... for arguments sake... isn't that what the gay community is doing? When you start from nothing, then anything becomes something. Yes, homosexuality has been kept in the closet. Now it's coming out. But how can you not think that is foisting someone's "lifestyle" on someone else? I seriously find this funny. Blacks used to always complain about there never being blacks in media. And rightly so. As a percentage of the population, they were certainly under represented in media... TV/movies. Then when hispanics became a economic block... bam, hispanics all over TV/movies. Well now, with homosexuality... um, WOW. I honestly believe it's a union rule in Holywood they can't produce a show with out gay representation. Seriously, they seem very over represented as a percentage of population. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Public awareness is a good thing. It's all good.... but many see that as forcing their beliefs on others. Nobody is making anyone have gay sex any more than anyone is making anyone accept Jesus and go to to church. But boths sides love to claim freedoms, then chastise the other for wanting to use them. One side is making laws preventing the other side from getting married. One side is trying to put their religious beliefs in textbooks. One side is constantly fighting to have prayers said in schools and courthouses. Why do people swear into office on a bible? "Public awareness is a good thing. It's all good.... but many see that as forcing their beliefs on others." I don't get this, being allowed to get married is forcing others to be homosexual? Is my being allowed to marry a woman forcing homosexuals to be heterosexual? Is having straight people in movies forcing the straight beliefs on others? |
| 2015-01-26 10:22 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 >Why is the whole "being Homosexual is a choice" thing a debate. Even if it was a choice, what right would anyone have to discriminate against it or call it wrong?.
X Is there conclusive scientific evidence that sexual preference is hereditary? Has the elusive "gay" gene been found? I think unless that question is solved, which is may well be, there will still be a debate surrounding sexual preference as a choice. Out of curiosity, what discriminatory legislation was passed against the gay community? |
| 2015-01-26 10:29 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 >Why is the whole "being Homosexual is a choice" thing a debate. Even if it was a choice, what right would anyone have to discriminate against it or call it wrong?. Is there conclusive scientific evidence that sexual preference is hereditary? Has the elusive "gay" gene been found? I think unless that question is solved, which is may well be, there will still be a debate surrounding sexual preference as a choice. Out of curiosity, what discriminatory legislation was passed against the gay community?
X Jackemy, when did you choose to be straight? How could you possibly make an informed decision without trying both? I propose you should take it for a test drive and go sleep with some men since its a choice. How does that sound to you? legislation: Edited by dmiller5 2015-01-26 10:30 AM |
| 2015-01-26 10:32 AM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 >Why is the whole "being Homosexual is a choice" thing a debate. Even if it was a choice, what right would anyone have to discriminate against it or call it wrong?. Is there conclusive scientific evidence that sexual preference is hereditary? Has the elusive "gay" gene been found? I think unless that question is solved, which is may well be, there will still be a debate surrounding sexual preference as a choice. Out of curiosity, what discriminatory legislation was passed against the gay community?
X Sure.....because people choose to be ridiculed, right? That's the dumbest debate ever IMO. |
| 2015-01-26 11:44 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: The whole homosexuality debate Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by dmiller5 >Why is the whole "being Homosexual is a choice" thing a debate. Even if it was a choice, what right would anyone have to discriminate against it or call it wrong?. Is there conclusive scientific evidence that sexual preference is hereditary? Has the elusive "gay" gene been found? I think unless that question is solved, which is may well be, there will still be a debate surrounding sexual preference as a choice. Out of curiosity, what discriminatory legislation was passed against the gay community?
X Jackemy, when did you choose to be straight? How could you possibly make an informed decision without trying both? I propose you should take it for a test drive and go sleep with some men since its a choice. How does that sound to you? legislation: Wow....You have some pretty strong assumption on my sexual history... Thinking back I remember the summer of 5th grade playing truth or dare with one of the neighborhood girls. I think that is when I decided kissing girls was way better that kissing boys. Before that I don't recall feeling differently between boys and girls. But honestly don't really know if the environment I grew up in led me to prefer girls or if I was born this way. So are you saying there is a conclusive study on "straight" gene? So for legislation, not one of those amendments in your link were pieces of legislation. All of them were ballot measures approved by the majority people of that State. None of those ballot measure are after 2006. Looking at it a different way, why should the States be in the business of licensing marriages? Why not work to eliminate the State's involvement in the institution of marriage? Would you be for that? |
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK